DC gun ownership up

By this surprisingly non-hostile article at the Washington Post, since DC's handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional over 1,400 guns have been registered in the district. Take into account though that there is only one place for DC residents to claim ownership of their purchased firearm due to DC not having any gun stores. In order for a US citizen to lawfully purchase a firearm, they have to buy it in their state of residence; DC is no different even though it's not a state, and the one fellow who is licensed to make transfers of guns in the district charges $125.

The gist of the article is that only the more affluent residents are buying guns, and when you consider that a Glock handgun - not expensive as far as handguns go - is between $550 and $650, and on top of that you have to pay for the $125 transfer fee, you can see why it's something that only the more well off can afford.

Someone needs to tell the guy in the caption on the article to keep his finger off the trigger. Just sayin. And Alan Gura gets quoted a few times in the article, showing in one part that he's a realist:

Police said they could provide no data on registered guns being stolen, misused or used in self-defense, nor could they cite any specific incidents.

"Oh, I'm sure there's been some misuse," said lawyer Alan Gura, who successfully argued against the ban before the Supreme Court. "People steal and misuse stuff every day, whether it's guns or cars or kitchen knives. It's no surprise that people steal stuff and do bad things. That's the ordinary course of life."

Too bad the anti-gunners aren't such realists.